Jump to content

2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: Obama (D-IL) vs. McCain (R-AZ)


Trae

Next United States President  

107 members have voted

  1. 1. Pick One

    • Barack Obama
      54
    • John McCain
      46
    • Other
      7


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Ok. Since I don't have kids, maybe I truly don't understand. Can you tell me how having them would change my view?

I predict that it won't. Your views are based on absolutist dogma and won't be changed by experience. If your daughter is raped you will do whatever you can to keep her from getting an abortion. You will tell her something about God testing her, and try to make her feel that she has no other choice.

So I say you should ignore TJones and continue to speak your mind about abortion and any other topic that you feel would benefit from expositional preaching. Further life experience will not alter your opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama says I'm my brother's keeper. Perhaps I am (you'd know it for fact unless you were a close friend or relative, especially from over the last couple months). But that is not Obama's or anybody else's decision to make than mine. He's talking about government-enforced redistribution of wealth from those who have earned it to those who have not, whether the individual taxpayers would want to support it or not.

Interestingly, it appears that the vast majority of Americans are better off traditionally when a Democrat is in power. This includes poor families and even families making more than 95% of all families. This blows away the economic argument I often hear from people who vote Republican. It's amazing how Republicans have managed to trick millions of voters into thinking they're better off under a Republican when it's actually the opposite.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business...amp;oref=slogin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two other big issues that Republicans often tout as their own include national defense and religious and "familiy values" issues.

I would think national defense is an issue that no longer favors republicans due to the Bush administration failures of the last eight years. This includes their failure to prevent 9/11, their failure to respond to Hurricane Katrina, and the colossal mistake of invading the wrong country and nearly wrecking our economy in the process.

Republicans still do the most pandering to religious voters, but I think this is a double-edged sword for them. Those of us who respect science and prefer facts over gospel and neo-con idealism are turned off in droves by the religious pandering over issues like stem-cell research and teaching religious stories like creationism in public schools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two other big issues that Republicans often tout as their own include national defense and religious and "familiy values" issues.

I would think national defense is an issue that no longer favors republicans due to the Bush administration failures of the last eight years. This includes their failure to prevent 9/11, their failure to respond to Hurricane Katrina, and the colossal mistake of invading the wrong country and nearly wrecking our economy in the process.

Republicans still do the most pandering to religious voters, but I think this is a double-edged sword for them. Those of us who respect science and prefer facts over gospel and neo-con idealism are turned off in droves by the religious pandering over issues like stem-cell research and teaching religious stories like creationism in public schools.

You are so far off on this, it boggles the mind.

1)National Defense, and failure to prevent 9/11 ? It is historically and factually correct that when a Democrat Pres. is in office, defense spending is severely cut in favor of new welfare programs. It is common knowledge that a Democratic Pres. had ample opportunity to arrest the individual believed to be responsible for the USS Cole and the 9/11 attacks, when offered up by the Sudanese Govt., and THAT President failed to do so, TWICE ! BTW, since 9/11 how many attacks have there been on U.S. soil by terrorists? There is proof the surge has worked in Iraq, even Obama has had to reluctantly admit it.

2) Hurrican Katrina, the only thing a Republican Pres. FAILED to do during Katrina, was to b!tchslap a certain dumb@$$ Dem. Governor out of the way 3 days prior to finally deciding to use his Executive Power to tell her to F'Off at the pleading of Mayor Nagin. The Republican Pres. tried going through the PROPER channels FIRST, as outlined when a natural disaster hits, and when that protocol failed, he decided to go cowboy on her and worry about the boundaries between state and federal laws later. Look it up 'Cuda, a Dem. dropped the ball, not a Rep.

3) The "religious right" is alot smaller group than the "talking head" Dems. would have you believe, and that is why most Dems. think that anyone who is a Rep. must be some sort of "Jesus Freak !". There are far more "moderate conservatives" than "religious right". Moderates probably outnumber them 20 to 1. The "religious right" just yell more, and like to get in front of the cameras, kinda like the Dems. Shelia Jackson Lees, and the Al Sharptons who continuously show their arses, but far remove themselves from representing the group as a whole. There are plenty of Baptists, Methodists, Catholics and other Christian religions that have their hardliners on abortion and creationism, such who still claim to be firm Clinton supporters and Barry Hussein lovin' Dems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is so much spin in this one it boggles the mind. Severely cut? Do you know our defense (if you can really call it that, more like offense) spending in 1999 was actually 33% of the total world military spending in 1999. How much more should it be? And now its like 630billion or something, which is more than all the other countries' combined. Talk about welfare, web contractors, war profiteers, war equipment manufacturers and the military folks are reeling in this the 630billion war welfare. And its welfare from debt, owned by Japan and China.

And I have heard too many of these 'God did it type reasoning' to explain why there are no attacks. Unless you can provide some direct evidence as to the cause and effect of why we are not attacked, any reason is a plausible one, even my constant farting can be said to be stopping terrorists.

As for the surge, how long have we been hearing it is working? Years since mission accomplished, The ultimate proof that the war is working is when the troop levels go down and troops come home. This kind of 'the surge is working' argument sounds like a gambler in Vegas. 'I am winning, I am winning at his table', 'Yeah, how much have you lost overall?' 'Who cares, I am winning at this table right now, and I will make it all back. Give me a couple of years.' 'Sure. here I will borrow more money to give you so you can finally make it all back.'

And the religious right aren't just yelling like the Al Sharptons. The Al Sharptons' are pretty good at getting media attention, but that's nothing compare to the power of the religious right in influencing our government policies and decisions to control ppl's way of life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is so much spin in this one it boggles the mind. Severely cut? Do you know our defense (if you can really call it that, more like offense) spending in 1999 was actually 33% of the total world military spending in 1999. How much more should it be? And now its like 630billion or something, which is more than all the other countries' combined. Talk about welfare, web contractors, war profiteers, war equipment manufacturers and the military folks are reeling in this the 630billion war welfare. And its welfare from debt, owned by Japan and China.

And I have heard too many of these 'God did it type reasoning' to explain why there are no attacks. Unless you can provide some direct evidence as to the cause and effect of why we are not attacked, any reason is a plausible one, even my constant farting can be said to be stopping terrorists.

As for the surge, how long have we been hearing it is working? Years since mission accomplished, The ultimate proof that the war is working is when the troop levels go down and troops come home. This kind of 'the surge is working' argument sounds like a gambler in Vegas. 'I am winning, I am winning at his table', 'Yeah, how much have you lost overall?' 'Who cares, I am winning at this table right now, and I will make it all back. Give me a couple of years.' 'Sure. here I will borrow more money to give you so you can finally make it all back.'

And the religious right aren't just yelling like the Al Sharptons. The Al Sharptons' are pretty good at getting media attention, but that's nothing compare to the power of the religious right in influencing our government policies and decisions to control ppl's way of life.

Defense spending should be as much as it can possibly be, seeing as how practicallly EVERY American depends on it, whether it be financially or for quality of life reasons. I.E. not being attacked by terrorists in the last 7 years.

"God did it", WTF are you squawking about ? Please quote the part of my post where I said ANYTHING about God being involved before or after 9/11. In the future webdude, please refrain from smoking crack before posting.

Seeing as how the surge was only implemented a few months ago, I think it would be pretty hard to say that ANYONE was claiming that "The Surge" has been working for "years". Perhaps your Dem. timeline is fouled up.

Lastly, please explain exactly WHAT "policies" are in play that have been influenced by the extreme rightwingers ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something my fiance just said about this Palin thing... you can't be a mother of 5, with a child with special needs born in April, and leave them at home to go be VP or President. Kids need their mothers.

And she thinks of herself as a (modern) feminist!

Hillary's daughter was all grown up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something my fiance just said about this Palin thing... you can't be a mother of 5, with a child with special needs born in April, and leave them at home to go be VP or President. Kids need their mothers.

guess you don't give women much credit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

guess you don't give women much credit.

Like I said, I didn't say it. My fiance said it.

So you think the full-time job of raising 4 kids (1 of her kids is out of the house) is compatible with the 24/7 job of being President of the US?

I think it is a fair question, but obviously it is easy to call sexist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Defense spending should be as much as it can possibly be, seeing as how practicallly EVERY American depends on it, whether it be financially or for quality of life reasons. I.E. not being attacked by terrorists in the last 7 years.

No. It should not. There is little correlation between the money wasted on this war and lack of attacks on US soil. Even 9/11 cannot be blamed on "lack" of defense spending, as the military cannot be deployed in the US. It is interesting that conservatives are quick to claim that throwing more money at something useful like education is not the solution, yet throwing money at a war that even the military concedes mades us LESS safe from terrorism is considered good policy. The fact that Billions of those dollars were consumed by theft and fraud by US contractors does not even raise an eyebrow.

TJ, I love you like a brother, but you need to use some logic on this matter. The people feeding this propaganda are fear mongering politicians and war profiteers. Not one of those Iraqi insurgents was a US threat. They are locals engaged in an insurgency for control of their own country. Think "wolverines", dude.

There IS a use for all of this wasted money and personnel that will contribute to national defense. It is called intelligence, diplomacy and clandestine operations. Intelligence is key to it all. It tells us who they are, what their plans are, and where to find them. Diplomacy is critical, as these terror groups are notoriously hard to infiltrate. We need the help of other countries, including the French, to gather the intelligence. Clandestine operations allows us to take out the terrorists with a minimum of publicity, critical in the terror game, as the lifeblood of terrorists is publicity, both for recruiting new terrorists and for raising money to fund their operations. Bush's lone wolf military strategy played right into Al Qaeda's hands, as Bush gave al Qaeda credit for everything, though it was involved in little of it, and foreign relations reached a new low, ruining our intelligence gathering capability.

Next time you here McCain claim that the military is the solution to everything, consider these two points. One, after spending $800 Billion in 7 years on 2 wars, al Qaeda is not only not defeated, they are said to be gaining strength. Additionally, bin Laden has never been captured. If I knew that my actions would cause my opponent to lose $800 Billion while not taking me out, should I feel defeated? Two, the Soviet Union's Cold War military strategy bankrupted the country and caused the breakup of the union. McCain is advocating the same strategy. He wants to use a sledgehammer to kill a flea. al Qaeda is said to be in dozens of countries, and is decentralized in structure. A traditional army cannot root it out. We will follow USSR's demise by continuing this flawed thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you think the full-time job of raising 4 kids (1 of her kids is out of the house) is compatible with the 24/7 job of being President of the US?

she won't have monica lewinsky to deal with so that should free up some of her time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are so far off on this, it boggles the mind.

1)National Defense, and failure to prevent 9/11 ? It is historically and factually correct that when a Democrat Pres. is in office, defense spending is severely cut in favor of new welfare programs. It is common knowledge that a Democratic Pres. had ample opportunity to arrest the individual believed to be responsible for the USS Cole and the 9/11 attacks, when offered up by the Sudanese Govt., and THAT President failed to do so, TWICE ! BTW, since 9/11 how many attacks have there been on U.S. soil by terrorists? There is proof the surge has worked in Iraq, even Obama has had to reluctantly admit it.

Don't go there. President Bill Clinton did go after the people responsible for the USS Cole attack. If you ask any historian, Clinton did more to fight terrorism than any President before him. And he did far more that Bush did during his first 9 months of office.

In fact, Clinton ordered missile strikes against targets in Afghanistan in 1998 in an attempt to hit Osama bin Laden, but Republicans balked at this, complaining that it was as an attempt to shift attention from the Lewinsky scandal. The Republicans balked that Clinton spent too much time obsessing with terrorism, and fought him at every step as Clinton tried to enact anti-terrorism legislation. It's just hard to remember because the media was obsessed with Monica Lewinsky at the time.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/18/anti.terror.bill/index.html

The Clinton Administration handed over a detailed terrorism-fighting manual to the Bush Administration when Bush took office. There was even a presidential briefing on 8/6/01 titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States." The Bush administration did not regard the manual or the terrorist threat appropriately. Instead, they obsessed with cold war defense such as building a nuclear missile shield.

Of course, as soon as 9/11 happened, the Republican attack machine immediately started blaming Clinton, the President who they had previously attacked for obsessing with terrorism. Oh, the irony!

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/1...ress/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2) Hurrican Katrina, the only thing a Republican Pres. FAILED to do during Katrina, was to b!tchslap a certain dumb@$$ Dem. Governor out of the way 3 days prior to finally deciding to use his Executive Power to tell her to F'Off at the pleading of Mayor Nagin. The Republican Pres. tried going through the PROPER channels FIRST, as outlined when a natural disaster hits, and when that protocol failed, he decided to go cowboy on her and worry about the boundaries between state and federal laws later. Look it up 'Cuda, a Dem. dropped the ball, not a Rep.

Yeah, there was mind-boggling failure at all levels of government, including the Dem. Governor and Mayor. But ultimately, as Commander in Chief, the President is supposed to take charge in massive emergency situations. Instead, he was eating birthday cake with none other than "more of the same" John McCain for McCain's 69th birthday party. It also begs mentioning that Bush put Michael Brown, former IAHA (horse association) Judge, in charge of FEMA. Heck of a job, Brownie!

3) The "religious right" is alot smaller group than the "talking head" Dems. would have you believe, and that is why most Dems. think that anyone who is a Rep. must be some sort of "Jesus Freak !". There are far more "moderate conservatives" than "religious right". Moderates probably outnumber them 20 to 1. The "religious right" just yell more, and like to get in front of the cameras, kinda like the Dems. Shelia Jackson Lees, and the Al Sharptons who continuously show their arses, but far remove themselves from representing the group as a whole. There are plenty of Baptists, Methodists, Catholics and other Christian religions that have their hardliners on abortion and creationism, such who still claim to be firm Clinton supporters and Barry Hussein lovin' Dems.

Don't know about the size, but the religious right has a far greater impact on politics due to loyalty and organization. But at some point I would think it has to break down a bit due to scandals and voter rift over Bush policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

she won't have monica lewinsky to deal with so that should free up some of her time.

You obviously aren't interested in actually discussing the very serious issues that are facing our country today... but instead want to re-live past culture-war grievances. And, in point of fact, McCain is the only person running for President who is an admitted adulterer...

Like I said before, this is serious business. We can't afford to elect people willing to play political games with the most important job in the world.

McCain The Maverick, according to his own advisers, wanted to pick Lieberman as his VP, then he wanted to pick Tom Ridge... but in the end he gave in to Rush Limbaugh and picked Palin.

Let's be honest, this is a 72-year-old man who has had 4 episodes of melanoma... a disease known for popping up anywhere in the body, no matter how long it has been in remission. These are facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You obviously aren't interested in actually discussing the very serious issues that are facing our country today... but instead want to re-live past culture-war grievances. And, in point of fact, McCain is the only person running for President who is an admitted adulterer...

And, McCain is also the only candidate selecting former beauty queens as a running mate (as well as new wives). Does musicman REALLY want to go down that road?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't go there. President Bill Clinton did go after the people responsible for the USS Cole attack. If you ask any historian, Clinton did more to fight terrorism than any President before him. And he did far more that Bush did during his first 9 months of office.

In fact, Clinton ordered missile strikes against targets in Afghanistan in 1998 in an attempt to hit Osama bin Laden, but Republicans balked at this, complaining that it was as an attempt to shift attention from the Lewinsky scandal. The Republicans balked that Clinton spent too much time obsessing with terrorism, and fought him at every step as Clinton tried to enact anti-terrorism legislation. It's just hard to remember because the media was obsessed with Monica Lewinsky at the time.

I call BS on this. They Balked at the fact that he was attacking on limited intelligence, and he did in fact launch cruise missiles and miss completely. It was mentioned in passing that He was in such a hurry to get the media distract from the Lewinsky deal, that he basically fired them in desperation at no "known" specific targets.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/18/anti.terror.bill/index.html

The Clinton Administration handed over a detailed terrorism-fighting manual to the Bush Administration when Bush took office. There was even a presidential briefing on 8/6/01 titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States." The Bush administration did not regard the manual or the terrorist threat appropriately. Instead, they obsessed with cold war defense such as building a nuclear missile shield.

Curious as to what briefing Clinton would have been giving Bush 8 months after he had left office. When in fact he and Hillary had gone into a long vacation to get ready for their big book tours and the lecture circuit, and then concentrate on getting Hillary elected into the Senate. Do you just make this crap up as you go, or do you have a source from above or something.

Of course, as soon as 9/11 happened, the Republican attack machine immediately started blaming Clinton, the President who they had previously attacked for obsessing with terrorism. Oh, the irony!

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/1...ress/index.html

Clinton Clinton Clinton, such a great President. The historical fact is that when Clinton took office, the Democratic Party controlled both houses of Congress and a majority of state governorships. By the time he left office, the Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress and two-thirds of the governorships. By the numbers alone, it was Clintonism that relegated the Democratic Party to the shadows.

You want to talk about what and where Clinton did so much good. Let's try a few on for size, in 1999, the Financial Services Modernization Act overturned the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. The Act that effectively barred banks, brokerages and insurance companies from entering each others' industries, and separated investment banking and commercial banking. The law was enacted in response to revelations of gross corruption and manipulation of the market by giant banking houses that organized huge corporate mergers for their own profit, thus leading to the total collapse of the stock market in 1929 and the great depression. With Bill's new act in place the unleashed and deregulated financial services sector boomed, bringing us the great godforsaken speculative boom that in turn gave us the temporary budget surplus of the late 1990's and all the finance-led booms and busts we've had since then. Then comes the Hedge Funds, oh yes, the damn hedge fund may not have been invented in the 1990's, but it was under Clinton that they were transformed into their modern form they are today, with the Clinton White House jumping up and down and doing back flips in favor of this mass transformation. In 1998, when the hedge fund, Long Term Capital Management, collapsed, leading to federal intervention, the Clinton's established the Working Group Committee on Financial Markets. In February 2000, it concluded that hedge funds needed no regulation. Boy do we still pay for that today. Oh but the economy is all GWB's fault.

Oh believe me, Clintonism never saw anything it didn't want to deregulate. Now there is blame to go around for everybody, and I will lay it on those who did it. I know that wholesale electricity deregulation began under Papa Bush, but Clinton worked relentlessly to extend it and bring it to the retail level. Let's not forget that Kenneth "Corn-hole" Lay, the founder of Enron and the driving force behind electricity deregulation was a friend of and mentor to Clinton as well as George W. Bush. Enron gave half a million to Clinton's party over three years and donated $100 grand to his inauguration festivities. Clinton's appointees on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) aggressively deregulated the electric grid system, even refusing to step in when Enron and other electricity traders' manipulation of prices drove California to the edge of bankruptcy, with the help of his buddy Gray Davis.

Hell let's not forget NAFTA, Bill signed that baby too. Hillary danced around that bullet her entire campaign. NAFTA been a real winner. Was going to keep those pesty illegals on their side of the fence, with all the great jobs it was going to produce in Mexico. Yeah that worked out really good. Ironically, illegal migration is probably the only thing that's saving Mexico from the ravages of NAFTA and preventing it from collapsing totally into economic and social havoc. NAFTA's big selling point was that trade, not financial aid, would boost the economy of Mexico and the lives of Mexicans. But the only thing that has kept the economic wolf from Mexico's door is the money and wages from illegal Mexicans living in the United States, working their asses off and sending most of their money home, not free friggin' trade. Clinton Clinton Clinton. He's gone, quit dragging his crooked ass back out to try and make him hold the torch for the Democratic Party. Rum Bum Teddy is about done for, his health is failing him, God bless his kids, but I have no sympathy for Edward. So I guess Bill is going to be the great hope for the Party, they better pick another. Bill's not the one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know every time you want to try and talk down GWB you drag Clinton's ass out of mothballs. They are both over, we got more to deal with now. GWB has admittedly rolled snake eyes more times than not in his tenure, you don't need to try and lie about Clinton to make it so. GWB does himself more harm than anything. But he sticks to his guns and says what's on his mind, no matter how foolish it may make him look, and I have to give him props for that. 9/11 wasn't his fault, it wasn't Clinton's either, it was a desperate act, by a bunch of fanatics, bent hell on doing what they did. We got caught with our pants down, Enron Wasn't GWB's deal either, yet all of that was dropped on his ass his first year in office, not many have had that happen to them and survived. Good Bad or indifferent, he's the CiC, and the office diserves respect. Next year somebody else will have the baby, and we'll all have to rally around him, whoever he is. GWB will be out in Crawford saying that God that nightmare is over, and he can go build his Library and chase his cows on 4-wheelers. Let's hope the next guy can get this BS in Iraq taken care of. My Son has spent 7 years over there and there are a lot more boys and girls doing the same thing. We have got to deal with the crap and do it now.

I'm done...........Now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You obviously aren't interested in actually discussing the very serious issues that are facing our country today... but instead want to re-live past culture-war grievances. And, in point of fact, McCain is the only person running for President who is an admitted adulterer...

actually if someone can admit to their mistakes that's not a bad thing to me. i know i've made some.

Like I said before, this is serious business. We can't afford to elect people willing to play political games with the most important job in the world.

Let's be honest, this is a 72-year-old man who has had 4 episodes of melanoma... a disease known for popping up anywhere in the body, no matter how long it has been in remission. These are facts.

any what does that have to do with picking a woman as VP? absolutely nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As always, this thing will most likely be determined by indpendant voters. I'd like to know what they're thinking. Anyone know of a good website or message board for that?

So far, Independents have been turned off my McCain's VP pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, McCain is also the only candidate selecting former beauty queens as a running mate (as well as new wives). Does musicman REALLY want to go down that road?

and obama selects a 36 yr senate veteran but yet he wants change? you're sounding like sam donaldson now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far, Independents have been turned off my McCain's VP pick.

I'd prefer to hear it from the horses mouth. Have any websites or message boards?

I've found one thread already and they don't seem to mind his choice. It's actually a little refreshing reading their thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curious as to what briefing Clinton would have been giving Bush 8 months after he had left office. When in fact he and Hillary had gone into a long vacation to get ready for their big book tours and the lecture circuit, and then concentrate on getting Hillary elected into the Senate. Do you just make this crap up as you go, or do you have a source from above or something.

I'm referring to the internal presidential daily briefing given to Bush (has nothing to do with Clinton). The title was "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States". This was on August 6, 2001.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden_Det...o_Strike_in_U.S.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/04/b44925.html

video: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/455411/bin_l...admit_in_testi/

Clinton Clinton Clinton, such a great President. The historical fact is that when Clinton took office, the Democratic Party controlled both houses of Congress and a majority of state governorships. By the time he left office, the Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress and two-thirds of the governorships. By the numbers alone, it was Clintonism that relegated the Democratic Party to the shadows.

I don't think Clinton was a great President as he caved on too many issues. But the previous post was in response to the specific issue of terrorism and national defense.

My original point is I think it's a myth that Republican presidents are stronger on issues of defense than Democrats. The contrast between the way Clinton and Bush handled terrorism is the most recent example I have to illustrate this point.

As for the fall of the Democratic Party in the 90's, that wasn't entirely due to Clinton. But I would say that Clinton fatigue was one of many issues (along with the Supreme Court) that helped get GWB elected in 2000. Now, we can blame/praise GWB for getting more Democrats elected in 2006 and 2008.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

any what does that have to do with picking a woman as VP? absolutely nothing.

A woman with a 5 children, including a 4-month-old Down syndrome baby, who has 20 months of experience running a state with a population and economy the size of Austin, who has no national or foreign policy experience, and who only won the governorship because she pointed out that the state's Republican party and governor were corrupt??

That has absolutely everything to do with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now we're gettin to the good stuff.

Is Sarah Palin's newborn actually her daughter's?

That's about as reliable a news source as the one-sided junk that has been spewed on this thread in this forum (from both sides of course). It's simply tiring. I know, it's my own fault for continuing to check this thread, but the ratio of well-reasoned posts that think/talk through an issue to those that just keep re-stating their already obvious positions is not very high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...